From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47257) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fqKhF-0000XM-Gz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:00:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fqKhC-0002W9-7u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:00:25 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:35802 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fqKh9-0002PQ-5H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:00:21 -0400 References: <20180816151637.24553-1-marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com> <9a69b82b-77a3-db58-5fe6-c0f1fccc1aa6@gmail.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <8f1b0512-89eb-6011-208b-b98ab3b5aef7@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 18:00:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9a69b82b-77a3-db58-5fe6-c0f1fccc1aa6@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2] config: split PVRDMA from RDMA List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Marcel Apfelbaum , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: yuval.shaia@oracle.com, rebecca@bluestop.org, peter.maydell@linaro.org On 08/16/2018 05:58 PM, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: > Hi Thomas, >=20 > On 08/16/2018 06:48 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 08/16/2018 05:16 PM, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: >>> In some BSD systems RDMA migration is possible while >>> the pvrdma device can't be used because the mremap system call >>> is missing. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Marcel Apfelbaum >>> --- >>> =C2=A0 configure=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>> =C2=A0 hw/rdma/Makefile.objs |=C2=A0 2 +- >>> =C2=A0 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> [...] >>> diff --git a/hw/rdma/Makefile.objs b/hw/rdma/Makefile.objs >>> index 3504c39d21..bd36cbf51c 100644 >>> --- a/hw/rdma/Makefile.objs >>> +++ b/hw/rdma/Makefile.objs >>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ >>> -ifeq ($(CONFIG_RDMA),y) >>> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_PVRDMA),y) >>> =C2=A0 obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) +=3D rdma_utils.o rdma_backend.o rdma_rm.o >>> =C2=A0 obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) +=3D vmw/pvrdma_dev_ring.o vmw/pvrdma_cmd.o = \ >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 vmw/pvrdm= a_qp_ops.o vmw/pvrdma_main.o >>> >=20 >> Again: >=20 > Sorry for not seeing the comment earlier. >=20 >> =C2=A0 Shouldn't the CONFIG_PVRDMA only guard the second line? I thoug= ht >> the first list should be fine with CONFIG_RDMA? >=20 > Indeed, theoretically the first line can be compiled=C2=A0 with CONFIG_= RDMA, > however the only code that utilize the first line .o files is the pvrdm= a > code. > So we will simply have a bigger binary without any reason. Ok, thanks for the explanation! Patch looks fine to me in that case, so: Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth